ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer

Q: Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has earthquake activity been increasing? Does this mean a big one is going to hit? OR We haven't had any earthquakes in a long time; does this mean that the pressure is building up?

A: Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years.

There are several reasons for the perception that the number of earthquakes, in general, and particularly destructive earthquakes is increasing.

1) A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications.

In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more that 4,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by telex, computer and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years, and we are able to locate earthquakes more rapidly.

The NEIC now locates about 12,000 to 14,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 35 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes. According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 18 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year. However, let's take a look at what has happened in the past 32 years, from 1969 through 2001, so far. Our records show that 1992, and 1995-1997 were the only years that we have reached or exceeded the long-term average number of major earthquakes since 1971. In 1970 and in 1971 we had 20 and 19 major earthquakes, respectively, but in other years the total was in many cases well below the 18 per year which we may expect based on the long-term average.

2) The population at risk is increasing. While the number of large earthquakes is fairly constant, population density in earthquake-prone areas is constantly increasing. In some countries, the new construction that comes with population growth has better earthquake resistance; but in many it does not. So we are now seeing increasing casualties from the same sized earthquakes.

3) Better global communication. Just a few decades ago, if several hundred people were killed by an earthquake in Indonesia or eastern China, for example, the media in the rest of the world would not know about it until several days, to weeks, later, long after such an event would be deemed “newsworthy”. So by the time this information was available, it would probably be relegated to the back pages of the newspaper, if at all. And the public Internet didn't even exist. We are now getting this information almost immediately.

4) Earthquake clustering and human psychology. While the average number of large earthquakes per year is fairly constant, earthquakes occur in clusters. This is predicted by various statistical models, and does not imply that earthquakes that are distant in location, but close in time, are causally related. But when such clusters occur, especially when they are widely reported in the media, they are noticed. However, during the equally anomalous periods during which no destructive earthquakes occur, no one deems this as remarkable.

A temporal increase in earthquake activity does not mean that a large earthquake is about to happen. Similarly, quiescence, or the lack of seismicity, does not mean a large earthquake is going to happen. A temporary increase or decrease in the seismicity rate is usually just part of the natural variation in the seismicity. There is no way for us to know whether or not this time it will lead to a larger earthquake. Swarms of small events, especially in geothermal areas, are common, and moderate-large magnitude earthquakes will typically have an aftershock sequence that follows. All that is normal and expected earthquake activity.

"However, let's take a look at what has happened in the past 32 years, from 1969 through 2001, so far. Our records show that 1992, and 1995-1997 were the only years that we have reached or exceeded the long-term average number of major earthquakes since 1971. In 1970 and in 1971 we had 20 and 19 major earthquakes, respectively, but in other years the total was in many cases well below the 18 per year which we may expect based on the long-term average."

It's the only possible explanation.No other self-proclaimed ZetaHead is as successful as he isin making Liederism look really, really stupid.(Apart from Nancy of cause.)

I wonder what his scale is.

Quoting: Halcyon Dayz

Agreed. Luserboy is a great TOOL for the debunkers. He aids in the EFFECTIVENESS of destroying what is left of Ms LIEDer's credibility. With follower's like, Luserboy, Nancy will NEVER be taken seriously EVER again. It is so hilarious watching Luserboy's posts as he continually "believes" he is somehow "SUPERIOR" to the debunkers......when in fact the opposite truth is so glaringly obvious.

POOR LUSERBOY!! such a sad figure on the GLP stage!!

Life Is But A Dream!!Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all."------------------------------------Disclaimer:

DON'T​ BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!!

None of the debunkers have yet made an excuse for saying earthquakes were not increasing in those years when they WERE. ALL of them said the same thing ... earthquakes are not increasing.

BUT, the data says otherwise, doesn't it?

Saying the increase is from more sensors installed is pure conjecture (speculation). How would they prove this?

Until they do ... earthquakes increased and the debunkers stay stuck in the mud. Fittingly where they belong!

Quoting: User # 78/68

Increase....decrease....so fucking what. I just went through a 6.8(December 21st) mag quake that struck our city and caused extensive damage. What the fuck do you know eh Luserboy. You come here and fucking mouth off about shit you "do not understand". Earthquakes happen. Some are random events...others come in "groups" of quakes. It has been this way throughout the "recorded" history of earthquakes. It has been this way for decades upon decades.Just like you bunkers and Ms LIEDer jumped on the "increased" hurricane season the "other" year...and then what.....their numbers decreased the following year.

Get over it you stupid dipshit. EARTHQUAKES are NOT caused by YOUR invisible planet "eX"....period.

Oh boy!! And YOU say that you possess TWO degrees???.... your FOOLISH arrogance has consumed your idiotic brain....period!!

Life Is But A Dream!!Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all."------------------------------------Disclaimer:

DON'T​ BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!!

None of the debunkers have yet made an excuse for saying earthquakes were not increasing in those years when they WERE. ALL of them said the same thing ... earthquakes are not increasing.

Quoting: User # 78/68

Did you do a meta-analysis of those numbers?

Hint. Calendar years are arbitrary time dividers.What happens if you use 100-day periods? Or 50-month periods?You'll find that over large enough periods of time the number of earth quakes are stable.And isn't the USGS part of the EbilGubmint™?So why are you using their numbers anyway?And ignore their explanation?

Yeah, I know. You're the LUser.One more for the list.

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. — Don Marquis

Hatred is a cancer upon the world.It rots the mind and blackens the heart.

None of the debunkers have yet made an excuse for saying earthquakes were not increasing in those years when they WERE. ALL of them said the same thing ... earthquakes are not increasing.Did you do a meta-analysis of those numbers?

Hint. Calendar years are arbitrary time dividers.What happens if you use 100-day periods? Or 50-month periods?You'll find that over large enough periods of time the number of earth quakes are stable.And isn't the USGS part of the EbilGubmint™?So why are you using their numbers anyway?And ignore their explanation?

Yeah, I know. You're the LUser.One more for the list.

Quoting: Halcyon Dayz

I downloaded the ANSS data from 1960 to present. However, I'm having trouble doing an analysis on it without going to the trouble of breaking it down into chunks that Excel or Open Office Calc can handle. It's currently in MS Access but my SQL query knowledge is rusty.

One of these days, when I have the time, I'll do a proper analysis of the data.

"Oh boy!! And YOU say that you possess TWO degrees???.... your FOOLISH arrogance has consumed your idiotic brain....period!!"

Yet, another lie from the PROVEN liar The Lone Ranger.

I never said I "possess" two degrees.

I said I "earned" one degree (a BSc. in biology) in 1987 from the University of Western Ontario.

Circuit Liar and you just can't understand how somebody can do this. BTW ... it was no big feat ... almost all of my friends have earned degrees, both undergrad and post grad. Study a little, and it becomes very easy. You debunker midgets might learn something if you also tried a little harder then spend all day on web-sites putting people down and pretending to know so damn much about almost everything talked about. It is always the under-educated know-it-alls that make such fools of themselves in all their arrogant glory. Thing is ... they're the last ones to know how they are perceived.

"Oh boy!! And YOU say that you possess TWO degrees???.... your FOOLISH arrogance has consumed your idiotic brain....period!!"

Yet, another lie from the PROVEN liar The Lone Ranger.

I never said I "possess" two degrees.

I said I "earned" one degree (a BSc. in biology) in 1987 from the University of Western Ontario.

Circuit Liar and you just can't understand how somebody can do this. BTW ... it was no big feat ... almost all of my friends have earned degrees, both undergrad and post grad. Study a little, and it becomes very easy. You debunker midgets might learn something if you also tried a little harder then spend all day on web-sites putting people down and pretending to know so damn much about almost everything talked about. It is always the under-educated know-it-alls that make such fools of themselves in all their arrogant glory. Thing is ... they're the last ones to know how they are perceived.

Circuit Liar and you just can't understand how somebody can do this. BTW ... it was no big feat ... almost all of my friends have earned degrees, both undergrad and post grad.

Quoting: User # 78/68

Good for your friends, but you didn't. And you're jealous of that.

Study a little, and it becomes very easy.

Quoting: User # 78/68

Advice you would be wise to follow.

You debunker midgets might learn something if you also tried a little harder then spend all day on web-sites putting people down and pretending to know so damn much about almost everything talked about.

Quoting: User # 78/68

LOL!! Let's play: SPOT THE IRONY

It is always the under-educated know-it-alls that make such fools of themselves in all their arrogant glory.

2004, 2005, then 2006 and now 2007 have more earthquakes than previously reported for all of the decades listed before, year-to-year.

Quoting: User # 78/68

Yes, but the numbers are also going DOWN. If you look at all the data you provided, you can see that the number of earthquakes over the time period remained fairly constant between 1300 and 1700 per year, with a dip in the numbers in the 90's and an increase in 2004...and a peak in 2005. TWO YEARS AFTER Nancy's make believe "planet" was supposed to be here. And then the numbers started going down again. Funny how you can't wrap your head around that. If "Planet X" were really responsible for any increase, then those numbers would be continuing to increase. They aren't. So, go ahead and keep spinning it anyway you want. No matter what you say or do, you're still wrong about "Planet X." End of story.

You lying twerps need your heads examined!

You certainly aren't doing a good job of earning the meager salary Nancy pays you. Time for you to run away again.

None of the debunkers have yet made an excuse for saying earthquakes were not increasing in those years when they WERE. ALL of them said the same thing ... earthquakes are not increasing.

BUT, the data says otherwise, doesn't it?

Saying the increase is from more sensors installed is pure conjecture (speculation). How would they prove this?

Until they do ... earthquakes increased and the debunkers stay stuck in the mud. Fittingly where they belong!

Quoting: User # 78/68

What is wrong with you?

Some years there are more quakes than the AVERAGE and some years there are less than AVERAGE. That's how the concept of AVERAGE works. Your shrieking about certain years when there were more quakes than the year or two before are a transparent attempt at data manipulation.

I have to agree that you are actually a secret debunker, since your contribution only serves to show how shallow and incompetent Nancy's believers are.

Idiot. Nancy's claim was of an OVERALL, DRAMATIC increase, and, now, an EXPONENTIAL increase. Debunkers pointed out that she was wrong and she was(and is). There was, and is, NO OVERALL INCREASE beyond the expected normal variance in specific numbers of quakes. Yes, you loon, some years have more quakes than others. That does not mean they are "increasing" overall. They have not. I see that you refuse to address the stats showing quite a DECREASE over the last few years. Does that mean that Earthquakes are going away and soon won't happen any more? Of course not, but you could just as easily argue that, based on your type of "logic".

None of the debunkers have yet made an excuse for saying earthquakes were not increasing in those years when they WERE. ALL of them said the same thing ... earthquakes are not increasing.

BUT, the data says otherwise, doesn't it?

Saying the increase is from more sensors installed is pure conjecture (speculation). How would they prove this?

Until they do ... earthquakes increased and the debunkers stay stuck in the mud. Fittingly where they belong!

What is wrong with you?

Some years there are more quakes than the AVERAGE and some years there are less than AVERAGE. That's how the concept of AVERAGE works. Your shrieking about certain years when there were more quakes than the year or two before are a transparent attempt at data manipulation.

I have to agree that you are actually a secret debunker, since your contribution only serves to show how shallow and incompetent Nancy's believers are.

Quoting: Menow 169333

Some years there are more quakes than the AVERAGE and some years there are less than AVERAGE. That's how the concept of AVERAGE works.

None of the debunkers have yet made an excuse for saying earthquakes were not increasing in those years when they WERE. ALL of them said the same thing ... earthquakes are not increasing.

BUT, the data says otherwise, doesn't it?

Saying the increase is from more sensors installed is pure conjecture (speculation). How would they prove this?

Until they do ... earthquakes increased and the debunkers stay stuck in the mud. Fittingly where they belong!

What is wrong with you?

Some years there are more quakes than the AVERAGE and some years there are less than AVERAGE. That's how the concept of AVERAGE works. Your shrieking about certain years when there were more quakes than the year or two before are a transparent attempt at data manipulation.

I have to agree that you are actually a secret debunker, since your contribution only serves to show how shallow and incompetent Nancy's believers are.

Some years there are more quakes than the AVERAGE and some years there are less than AVERAGE. That's how the concept of AVERAGE works.

This makes no sense..Are you predicting Quakes?

Quoting: Free Store 142819

HUH? You don't understand what the term "average" means and how an "average" number is derived from a list of figures?

"Oh boy!! And YOU say that you possess TWO degrees???.... your FOOLISH arrogance has consumed your idiotic brain....period!!"

Yet, another lie from the PROVEN liar The Lone Ranger.

I never said I "possess" two degrees.

I said I "earned" one degree (a BSc. in biology) in 1987 from the University of Western Ontario.

Circuit Liar and you just can't understand how somebody can do this. BTW ... it was no big feat ... almost all of my friends have earned degrees, both undergrad and post grad. Study a little, and it becomes very easy. You debunker midgets might learn something if you also tried a little harder then spend all day on web-sites putting people down and pretending to know so damn much about almost everything talked about. It is always the under-educated know-it-alls that make such fools of themselves in all their arrogant glory. Thing is ... they're the last ones to know how they are perceived.

Quoting: User # 78/68

You stupid stupid FOOL. Now I know that you really do possess TWO degrees. Work it out

PS: We know who the real liar is around here. Yourself. But hey DENIAL is the complete bunker trait now, isn't it!!

Keep shooting your idiotic self. It's fun to watch.

:78_68:

Life Is But A Dream!!Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all."------------------------------------Disclaimer:

DON'T​ BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!!